Jonas, R. v

A trial judge must control the cross-examination of a child or vulnerable witness. In a multi-handed trial, advocates may be treated as a group and prevented from repeating the same questions or covering the same territory, provided that this causes no unfairness to an accused person. The appellate question is whether the restrictions prevented a proper opportunity to challenge material evidence or pursue matters specific to that defendant.

A summing-up need not repeat each defence argument or inconsistency. It is sufficient if the judge gives a fair overall summary of the issues and evidence.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court of conspiracies concerning trafficking for sexual exploitation, controlling prostitution, and assisting unlawful immigration. He received a total sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.

His appeal against conviction challenged the trial judge’s restriction of his counsel’s cross-examination of AS, a vulnerable complainant. The restriction prevented further repetitive questioning about her pre-2010 history, while preserving questioning specific to the appellant and the charges. The appeal also alleged bias, unfair handling of late fresh evidence, and deficiencies in the summing-up.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge’s restrictions on cross-examination did not render the convictions unsafe.

2. The court applied the approach in R v Lubembo and Pooley [2014] EWCA Crim 2064. A judge has a duty to control over-rigorous or repetitive questioning of a vulnerable witness. In a multi-handed trial, the judge may prevent each advocate from revisiting common topics and may divide issues between the defence, provided that the overall opportunity to challenge the evidence remains fair.

3. The restriction concerned collateral credibility material about AS’s earlier history. It did not prevent questioning directed to the appellant or the offences charged. The first defendant’s counsel had already explored the material extensively, and the appellant’s counsel identified no substantial relevant question wrongly excluded. The defence as a whole had ample material and time to challenge AS’s credibility.

4. The judge’s intervention protected the vulnerable witness from unnecessary and oppressive repetition without sacrificing the defendants’ right to a fair trial. Her handling of the late material said to be fresh evidence allowed sufficient time for investigation and presentation to the jury.

5. The summing-up was balanced, fair and accurate. A trial judge need not rehearse every defence submission or inconsistency elicited in cross-examination if the overall summary of the issues and evidence is fair. There was no lurking doubt as to the safety of the convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant’s appeal against his Crown Court convictions was dismissed.
• Crown Court: At Wood Green Crown Court, the appellant was convicted on 12 December 2013 and sentenced on 20 December 2013 to ten years’ imprisonment in total.